Accountability in Governance

AccountabilityinGovernance:TheChallengeofImplementingtheAarhusConventioninEasternEuropeandCentralAsia

EnvironmentalLawInstitute,1616PStreetNW,Washington,DC20036,USA;2MilieuLtd.,EnvironmentalLawConsultancy,29ruedesPierres,1000Brussels,BelgiumAccepted23February2004

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKO1andGRETTAGOLDENMAN21Abstract.Thesigningofthe1998UNECEConventiononAccesstoInformation,PublicParticipationinDecision-MakingandAccesstoJusticeinEnvironmentalMatters(AarhusConvention)radicallyextendedinternationallawontransparencyandaccountabilityinenvironmentalgovernance.ForthecountriesofEasternEurope,CaucasusandCentralAsia(EECCA)thathavenowratified,theConventioncouldpromptprofounddemocraticchanges.Thisarticle,basedontheauthors’experiences,analyseschangingculturesofgovernanceinEECCAcountries.Thefirstso-calledpillarofaccesstoinformationsetsinplacerightsthatdirectlycontradictthefundamentalsecrecyoftheformerSovietUnioncountries.Someofficials’reluctancetoshareenvironmentalinformationmayalsobelinkedtotheeconomicduressofthecurrenttransitionperiod,whereinformationmaybeanofficial’sonlyasset.Thesecondpillarofpublicparticipationalsoposesdifficultiesforofficialsforwhomthehighestpraiseistobeconsidereda‘‘professional’’.Intheirbeliefthatnooneknowsbetterthantheydo,theyarereluctanttospendtimeandresourcestomakedecision-makingtransparentandtoinvolvethepublic.Thethirdpillarofaccesstojusticebreaksnewgroundforpost-socialistcountriesstilldevelopingtheirjudicialsystems.ThoughseveralhighlysophisticatedNGOshavebeensuccessfulinusingcourts,itremainsdifficultforanordinaryEECCAcitizentobringanenvironment-relatedlegalaction.Changingtheseattitudesandpracticeswillbealongandtroublesomeprocess.TheAarhusConventionwillnotbetrulyimplementeduntilopenness,transparencyandaccountabilityinenvironmentaldecision-makingbecomeevery-dayhabits.

Keywords:AarhusConvention,accesstoinformation,accesstojustice,accountability,cul-ture,EECCA,environmentalinformation,governance,multilateralenvironmentalagree-ments,postSovietstates,publicparticipation,transparency

Introduction

ForthecountriesofEasternEurope,CaucasusandCentralAsia(EECCA),suc-cessfultransitiontodemocraticandaccountablegovernmentsdependsinpartonthemannerinwhichinformationisprovidedtocitizensandontheopportunitiespro-

230

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANvidedforpublicparticipationindecision-making.Transparencyandaccountabilityingovernanceareparticularlyimportanttoensureanadequatelevelofenviron-mentalprotection.

Europeanlawwasradicallyextendedintheseareaswiththesigningofthe1998UNECEConventiononAccesstoInformation,PublicParticipationinDecision-MakingandAccesstoJusticeinEnvironmentalMatters(AarhusConvention).TheAarhusConventiongrewoutoftheEnvironmentforEuropeprocessthatstartedin1991withthefirstConferenceofEuropeanEnvironmentalMinistersatDobrisinCzechoslovakia.Itwasdevelopedwiththeactiveparticipationofenvi-ronmentalnon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)fromCentralandEasternEurope,WesternEurope,andtheUnitedStates,andsignedin1998atthefourthConferenceofEuropeanEnvironmentalMinistersinAarhus,Denmark,by36EuropeanandCentralAsiangovernments.1TheAarhusConventioncameintoforceon30October2001,after17countries,onemorethannecessarytobringtheConventionintoforce,becamePartiestotheConvention.2ThefirstMeetingofthePartiestotheConventiontookplaceinOctober2002inLucca,Italy.3ManyoftheprovisionsoftheAarhusConventionarealreadyfundamentaltoenvironmentalgovernanceinWesternEuropeanandNorthAmericancountries.PriortotheAarhusConvention,EUlegislationhadestablishedminimumstandardsforpublicaccesstoinformationandpublicparticipationin,e.g.,environmentalimpactassessmentandpermittingofindustrialinstallations.4However,theAarhusConventionextendedEUrequirementsinanumberofprovisions,byinteraliagivingbroaderdefinitionsofenvironmentalinformationandpublicauthority,andrecognizingtherightofcitizensandenvironmentalNGOstobringsuitsincourtsofjusticewhenanenvironmentalrighthasbeeninfringed.TheEuropeanUnionisthereforeintheprocessofrevisingitslegislationtosetinplacealloftheAarhusConventionobligations,toenableratification5.ThiswouldthenbringtheConventionintoforcefortheMemberStatesthathavenotyetratified,andalsoencourageratificationbytheremainingEUapplicantcountries.

ButitisespeciallyforthecountriesofEasternEurope,CaucasusandCentralAsia(EECCA)thatthecivilrightsestablishedundertheAarhusConventioncouldpromptprofounddemocraticchanges.Certainlytheserightsgofarbeyondthoseprovidedintheformercentrallyplannedeconomies.TheAarhusConventionisthereforeconsideredauniqueinstrumentfordemocratisationingeneralandformakingenvironmentalgovernanceinparticularmoreaccountable.

TheliteraturedevelopedsincethesigningoftheAarhusConventionincludesmanualsprovidingguidanceonimplementationoftheConvention,6analysesofthelegalimplicationsoftheConventionfortheEuropeanCommunity,fortheMemberStatesaswellastheEUinstitutionsthemselves,7anddescriptionsoftheexperiencesaccumulatedbydifferentstakeholdersonthethemesrelevanttotheConvention.8However,thequestionofhowcultureandtraditionsofgovernanceinthepostSoviet

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA231

statesmayaffectimplementationoftheAarhusConventionhasnotyetbeenproperlyandfullyexplored.

ThisarticleoffersareflectiononsomeofthedifficultiesthatEECCAcountriesfaceinchangingtheirculturesofgovernanceasneededtoimplementtheAarhusConvention.

Itisbasedontheauthors’first-handexperiencesworkingintheEECCAcountriesinthecontextoftheAarhusConvention.Intheperiod1998to2002,theycarriedoutmissionstosixpostSovietcountries(Moldova,Ukraine,Kazakhstan,Belarus,RussianFederation,andEstonia)andtwootherCentralandSoutheasternEuro-peancountries(PolandandCroatia),inordertodeveloptechnicalassistancepro-jectsaimedatbuildingadministrativecapacityforimplementingtheAarhusConventionparticularlywithinministriesofenvironment.9Theprocessofprojectpreparationinvolvedintensiveinformationgatheringinteraliathroughinterviewsandliteraturereview.Theauthorscarriedoutsome10–15interviewsineachcountry,focusinginparticularonministryofenvironmentofficialsinvolvedonaday-to-daybasiswithinformationmanagement,environ-mentalimpactassessment,permittingofindustrialinstallationsandotherregulatoryactivitiesrelevanttoimplementationoftheAarhusConvention.Theyalsocarriedoutfieldvisitstoregionalenvironmentalprotectionofficesandmetwithacross-sectionofrepresentativesfromnon-governmentalorganisations.Insomecountriestheyalsointerviewedofficialsinministriesofjusticeaswellasstaffworkingforthenationalparliament.Thearticlealsodrawsontheauthors’some15yearsexperienceworkinginothercountriesintheEECCAregiononthemesrelevanttotheAarhusConvention,eitheraslocalprofessionalsorexpatriatelegalexperts.InexaminingtheoriginsofthetraditionsofgovernancestillinfluencingpostSovietcountries,itsuggestselementsthatshouldbetakenintoaccountindesigningimplementationstrategiesortechnicalassistancerelevanttotheConvention.

TheAarhusConventionasaForceforTransformingEnvironmentalGovernanceWhentheAarhusConventioncameintoforceinOctober2001,elevenofthe17initialPartieswereformerSovietUnioncountries:Armenia,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Estonia,Georgia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Moldova,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,andUkraine.Currently,ofall15formerSovietrepublics,onlytheRussianFeder-ationandUzbekistanhaveneithersignednoraccededtotheAarhusConvention.SinceEstonia,LatviaandLithuaniawillbecomeEUMemberStatesinMay2004,theyareobligedtoalignwiththelawsandpracticesinplacewithintheEuropeanUnion.ThisarticlethereforefocusesontheothertenPartiestotheAarhusCon-ventionthatwereformerlySovietUnionrepublics.Thesecountries,aswellasotherEuropeancountriesformerlylinkedtotheSovietbloc,havealotincommoninthetraditionsofgovernancedevelopedduringthesocialistpast.

IndiscussionswithsomeWesternandCentralEuropeanofficials,theauthorsfrequentlyheardcriticismsoftheEECCAratifyingcountriesforrushingto

232

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANratification,perhapsasademonstrationoftheircommitmenttodemocracy,beforetakingthepracticalstepsnecessaryforimplementation.ThemanyEECCAofficialsinterviewedinthecourseoftheauthors’investigationsintheregionexpressedacommitmenttotheAarhusConventionprinciplesthatcouldseemabitidealistic,giventheobstaclesdescribedbelow,butnonethelessappearedgenuine.

OtherobserversseesteadyprogressintheimplementationeffortsoftheEECCAPartiestotheConvention.10Inanycase,whereasthelegaltraditionofWesternEuropeancountriesistoratifyaninternationalinstrumentonlyafterEUandna-tionallawsandregulationshavebeenbroughtintocompliance,thetraditioninEECCAcountriesistheopposite.Thereitismorecommontofirstratifytheinternationalinstrumentandthenbringtheirnationallawsincorrespondencewiththeinternationalrequirements.

TheAarhusConventiondiffersfromotherinternationalinstrumentsinanumberofways.Itdoesnotfocusonaspecificenvironmentalproblemanditsconsequences,asamajorityofmultilateralenvironmentalagreementsdo.Ratheritprovidesarights-basedapproachtoaddressingenvironmentalproblems.Itisthefirstinter-nationaltreatythatlinksthebasichumanrighttoliveinanenvironmentadequatetopeople’shealthandwell-beingwithproceduralguaranteesconcerningtherightsofthegeneralpublictoaccesstoinformation,publicparticipationindecisionmaking,andaccesstojusticeinenvironmentalmatters–thethreeso-called‘‘pillars’’.11TherightsprovidedtothepublicundertheConventionaretobenon-discriminatoryastocitizenship,nationalityordomicileand,inthecaseofalegalperson,withoutdiscriminationastowhereithasitsregisteredseatoreffectivecentreofitsactivities.Atthesametime,theAarhusConventionplacesobligationsonthegovernmentsofthecountriesthatarePartytotheConvention–inparticular,theexecutivebranch.Inthissense,theAarhusConventiondrawsdirectlyoncertaintraditionsofdemocraticgovernance12andrequiresaprocessoftransformationinthosecountrieswheresuchtraditionsarelacking.Indeed,itgoesfurtherthanotherinternationalenvironmentalinstrumentstointerveneintothecultureandtraditionsofgover-nance.ForEECCAcountries,therefore,implementingtheAarhusConventionisnotonlyaboutenactingnewlegalrequirementsandrules,butmostofallaboutintroducingnewwaysofenvironmentalgovernance.ForthisreasonthediscussionofmeasuresnecessaryforimplementationoftheAarhusConventionintheEECCAregionshouldbeconstantlywoventogetherwithanexaminationofthetraditionsandculturesofgovernancethatmaybeinneedoftransformation.

FortheCentralandEasternEuropecountriesthatareabouttobecomeEuropeanUnion(EU)MemberStates,implementationoftheAarhusConventionislinkedtoeffortstoharmonisenationallegislationandpracticeswithEUrequirementsinordertocompletetheconditionsforEUmembership.13ApproximationwiththeEUrequirementsonaccesstoenvironmentalinformationandpublicparticipationinenvironmentaldecisionmakingisfundamental,sincetheseapplythroughouttheEUenvironmentalacquis.ImplementationoftheAarhusConventionisthereforeanessentialpartofthepreparationofthesecountriesforEUmembership.

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA233

Inarelatedprocess,manyoftheEECCAcountrieshaveenteredintobilateralagreementswiththeEuropeanUnion,knownasPartnershipandCo-operationAgreements(PCAs).EachPCAisaten-yearbilateraltreatythatsetsforthalegalframeworkforcooperationbasedontherespectofdemocraticprinciplesandhumanrights14.Inadditiontodefiningthepolitical,economicandtraderelationshipbe-tweentheEUandthepartnercountry,thePCAcommitsthepartnercountrytobringingitslegalsystemclosertotherequirementsoftheEuropeanUnion.PCAsarenowinforcewithtenEECCAcountries,includingUkraine,Moldova,KazakhstanandRussia15.

ThegovernmentsofthesecountriesvaryinthedegreetowhichtheyaremovingforwardonbringingtheirlegalsystemsintoalignmentwiththerequirementsoftheEU.Nonetheless,theEUlegalframeworkhasbecomeareferencepointformostlegislativechangesintheregion.IncertaincountriesallpendinglegislationisintheoryrequiredtobeapproximatedtotheEUrequirementsasmuchaspossible16.Inanycase,thoseEECCAcountriesthathaveratifiedtheAarhusConventionorenteredintoPCAshavecommittedthemselvestoaligningwithdemocratictraditionswithrespecttoenvironmentalgovernance.Theprocessofimplementingthesecommitmentswillrequirefundamentaltransformationswithinministriesofenvi-ronmentandotheragenciesinordertoensurecompliancebyofficialsintheireverydaywork.

ReflectionsonImplementingtheFirstPillarofAccesstoInformation

TheAarhusConventioncomprisesthreeso-called‘‘pillars’’:accesstoenvironmentalinformation,publicparticipationinenvironment-relateddecisionmaking,andac-cesstojusticeinenvironmentalmatters.Thesethreepillarsarerelatedandinter-dependentoneachother.Accesstotheenvironmentalinformationheldbyauthoritiesisnecessaryforinformedpublicparticipationindecision-making,whileaccesstojusticeiscrucialforsafeguardingtherightstoreceiveinformationonrequestandtoparticipateincertainenvironment-relateddecisionprocesses.

Thefirstpillarofaccesstoenvironmentalinformation(Articles4–5)recognisestherightsofcitizenstorequestandtoreceiveenvironment-relatedinformationheldbypublicauthorities.Italsoplacesanumberofobligationsontheexecutivebranchofgovernment.

Forexample,Partiesarerequiredtoinformtheircitizensaboutthetypesofenvironmentalinformationheldbypublicauthoritiesandhowitmaybeobtained.Governmentsaretoestablishandmaintainpracticalarrangementsformakingthisinformationaccessible,17e.g.,publiclyaccessiblelists,registersorfiles,andidenti-ficationofpointsofcontact.Moreover,governmentsaretomakeenvironmentalinformationprogressivelyavailableinelectronicdatabaseseasilyaccessibletothepublic.18Finally,governmentsaretoestablishacoherent,nationwidesystemofpollutioninventoriesorregisterscompiledthroughstandardizedreportingandavailableinacomputerizedandpubliclyaccessibledatabase19.

234

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANWithrespecttotherightsofcitizensconcerningtheenvironmentalinformationheldbypublicauthorities,20governmentsmust:

•Ensurethatpublicofficialsmakeinformationontheenvironmentavailabletoanyonerequestingitassoonaspossibleand,atthelatest,withinonemonth,unlesstheinformationcomesundercertainspecifiedexceptions.

•Definethepracticalarrangementsbywhichsuchinformationismadeavailable,e.g.,publicauthoritiesintendingtochargeforsupplyinginformationmustprovideapplicantswithascheduleofchargesthatmaybelevied.

TheserightsandobligationsareindirectcontradictiontothesecrecythatwasafundamentalcharacteristicoftheformerEasternBloccountries.ThepoliticalsysteminplaceduringtheformerSovietUniondidnotrecognizetherightofcitizenstoknowortoaccessinformationinthehandsofthegovernment,andgovernmentalinstitutionsconsideredinformationtheypossessedastheirowndomain.Thenotionthatinformationwhichrelatestotheinterestofthewholesociety(asenvironmentalinformationdoes)shouldbeopenandaccessibletothegeneralpublic,evenifheldinthehandsofgovernment,was,andoftenstillis,absentfromthethinkingofmanygovernmentofficials.

Theweaknessofasystemofgovernancethatisnotobligedtoprovideenviron-mentalinformationtothepublicwasprofoundlydemonstratedbythe1986Chor-nobylcatastrophe.FordaysaftertheaccidentthatledtothemassivereleaseofradiationfromtheChornobylnuclearpowerplant,thegeneralpopulationoftheSovietUnionwasnotinformedthattheaccidenthadoccurred,norofthepossibleconsequencestohumanhealthandtheenvironment.21Thepublicoutrageatthisfailuretoinformthecitizenryonsuchacrucialmatteroftheirhealthandsafetyhelpedtofuelthepressuresforchangeintheareaofaccesstoinformationthatfollowedinthelate1980sandincludedcallsbyprominentenvironmentalactivistsandintellectualstoraiseenvironmentalawarenessandtoendtheSovietpolicyofsecrecy.22ItisnotsurprisingthatUkraine(thehomelandofChornobyl)becamethefirstcountrythat,evenbeforeindependence,adoptedregulationsonthecollectionanddisseminationofenvironmentalinformation.The1990DecreeoftheGovernmentofUkraine(atthetime,UkrainianSovietSocialistRepublic)chargedtheStateCom-mitteeforNatureProtectionwithresponsibilitytocollectallrelevantenvironmentalinformationonbehalfofthepublicandthentodisseminateittothepublicthroughmassmedia.23Intheearly1990s,articlespointingouttheimportanceoftherighttoknowanddirectaccesstoinformationbycitizensbecameapartofthepublicdis-cussionconcerningnewlydevelopeddraftlawsonpublichealthandenvironment.24Intheearly1990s,Ukrainebecamethefirstcountryinthepost-Sovietregiontoadoptagenerallawoninformation,25withseveralothercountrieseventuallyfol-lowingthislead.26Introductionofsuchlawswasanimportantstepforthesecountriesintheireffortstofindnewwaystobuildopensocieties.Nevertheless,thisfirstgenerationoflawsbyandlargefocusedonthecollection,organisationand

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA235

collectionofinformationbygovernmentagencies,andgaveonlylimited(ifany)attentiontoguaranteesforaccesstothatinformationforthepublicatlarge.InthisregarditisinterestingtonotehowthetitlesofsomeEECCAcountries’laws,suchasthe1995LawN.24-F3onInformation,InformatizationandProtectionofInfor-mationoftheRussianFederation27reflectsthegovernment’sconcernwiththeneedtosafeguardinformationratherthantoprovidethepublicwithaccesstothatinformation.

TobetterunderstandhowcomplicatedtheprocessofopeningupthesocietiesofEECCAcountriesturnedouttobe,itshouldbenotedthatinalmostallthosecountrieswherelawsofinformationemerged,suchlawswereusuallyprecededorfollowedwithintwoyearsbylawsonstatesecrets.28Thefactthatthetraditionofsecrecykeptmanifestingitselfevenyearsafterthesestatesbecameindependentindicatesthatthisisnotaneasytraditiontouproot.

Atthesametime,environmentalinformationhasattimesbeenviewedasaspecialcase.Forexample,the1995RussianLawdescribedaboveincludesanimportantprovisionstipulatingthatinformationconcerningtheenvironmentalcannotbeclassified.29Inanumberofpost-socialistEECCAcountries,governmentsstartedtopublishannualnationalstateoftheenvironmentreportsanddistributesuchreportstothepublic.30Ministriesofenvironmentbegantodeveloppubliceducationcampaigns,inordertobuildmoreawarenessandpublicsupportforenvironmentalprotection.ThesetrendsareinlinewithelementsofthefirstpillaroftheAarhusConvention.Forexample,theConventionspecificallyobligesgovernmentstopossessandupdateenvironmentalinformation,includingtheestablishmentofsystemstoensureanadequateflowofinformationaboutproposedandexistingactivities.Intheeventofanyimminentthreattohumanhealthortheenvironment,allinformationthatcouldenablethepublictotakepreventiveormitigatingmeasuresistobeimmediatelydisseminated.31OnthebasisoftheirdiscussionswithministryofenvironmentofficialsintheEECCAregion,theauthorsfoundastrongcommitmenttoprovidinginformationonthestateoftheenvironmenttothepublic.Butthesediscussionsalsoindicatedthattheotheraccesstoinformationobligations–thoughrelativelystraightforward–willbemuchmoredifficulttoputinpractice.Inseveralinterviews,activitiestoimplementtheAarhusConventionweredescribedas‘‘propagandaandeducation’’32–termsstraightfromthesocialistpast.Intheirfocusonprovidingpre-packagedinformationtothepublic,theseofficialsseemedtooverlookthetwo-wayobligationonaccesstoinformation–thatgovernmentsarealsoobligedtoprovidemembersofthepublicwiththeinformationtheywanttoknow,wheneverasked.

Inonediscussionin2000,aseniorKazakhstanofficialhaddifficultyacknow-ledgingthatmembersofthepublicmightwantinformationdifferentfromthatwhichthegovernmentwantedthemtoknow.Hequestionedhowthepubliccouldknowwhatinformationwasimportant.Heinsistedthatonlyscientistsknewandcoulddecidewhatinformationshouldbemadeavailabletothepublic:‘‘Mysix-year-old

236

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANdaughterasksmealotofquestions,butIasherfatherknowwhatshouldorshouldnotbeanswered’’.33TheauthorsalsofoundthisbiasoutsideoftheEECCAregion.In2000,theunitforpublicinformationwithintheCroatianMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionandPhysicalPlanningwaslabeledwithaCroatiantermthatmeant‘‘propagandadepartment’’.34CroatianNGOrepresentativestoldtheauthorsthatthiswasindic-ativeofwhattheyfeltwasagenerallypaternalisticattitudeonthepartoftheministry,andalackofgenuineinformationsharinganddialoguewithNGOsandothermembersofthepublic.

Interestinup-to-dateinformationmanagementtechnologiesandindevelopingcapacitytocollectandmanageenvironmentalinformationviaelectronicmeansishighinalloftheEECCAministriesofenvironmentvisitedbytheauthors.However,therelatedAarhusConventionrequirement–thatsuchelectronicdatabasesbeeasilyaccessibletothepublic–isfrequentlyoverlookedandsometimesevenobstructed.InUkrainein2000,top-levelofficialsintheMinistryofEcologicalSafetyandNaturalResourcesrefusedtointroduceagency-wideemail,eventhoughtheMinistryalreadyhadalocalareanetwork(LAN)linkingallofficialsservedbydesktopcomputers.Allelectroniccommunicationswiththeoutsideworldhadtogothroughonecomputersupervisedbyanofficialauthorisedtoreceiveandsendemails.TheministryleadershipdefendedthedecisiontorestrictlineofficialsfromindividualaccesstoemailandtotheInternetbyarguingthatInternetaccesswouldcosttoomuchandwouldbetoomuchofadistractionfromtheMinistry’srealwork.TooutsideobserverswatchingthequeueofMinistryofficialswaitingfortheirturnatthesingleon-linecomputer,itseemedthattheMinistryleadershipwasmoreinter-estedincontrollingitsstaffthaninhelpingthemtodotheirjobsefficientlyandopenly.35Thereluctanceofsomeofficialstoshareenvironmentalinformationmaybepartlylinkedtothedramaticchangesineconomiccircumstancesthathaveaccompaniedthecurrenttransitionperiod.Thesalariesofgovernmentofficials–especiallyinthepublicagenciesdirectlyconcernedwithenvironmentalmatters–haveshrunktohumiliatinglevels,sometimeswellbelowwhatisnecessaryforproperlyprovidingforafamily,whileinflationandothereconomicshockshaveeliminatedanysavingsaccumulatedinearliertimes.Theinformationthatgovernmentofficialspossessmayoftenbetheironlyassetandsourceofprideaswellasofprofessionalrecognition.Forsuchanofficial,itcanbedifficulttoletgoofthisinformationtosomebody‘‘fromthestreet’’justbecausethatpersonhasaninterestinit.Thesuspicionthatsomeonemaymakemoneyfromusingthatinformationdoesnotincreasetheattractivenessofgivingtheinformationfreely.

ThusthereisoftenatypeofcognitivedissonancetobefoundwithinEECCAministriesofenvironmentconcerningthefirstpillaroftheAarhusConvention.Ontheonehand,officialsareeagertoinformthepublicabouttheenvironment.Ontheotherhand,theyseektocontrolandchanneltheenvironmentalinformationtheyhold.ThelogicalextensionofthisattitudewasfoundinBelarusin2001,where

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA237

officialswithintheBelarussianMinistryofEnvironmenthadcontractedwithascientificorganisationtocarryoutanextensivesurvey,includingpublichearings,todiscoverwhatenvironmentalinformationpeoplewouldwanttoknow.Theythenintendedtosetupacomprehensivedatabasethatwouldgathertheinformationneededtoanswerallpossiblequestionsfromthepublicinadvance.Ministryofficialsdiscountedthepossibilitythatthepublicmightwantmorethanpre-packagedinformationifspecificproblemsarose.

Atthesametime,environmentalofficialsmentionedinsideconversationsthattheycouldnotobtaincertainenvironment-relatedinformation,particularlydataontheradiationcontaminationofsouthernBelarusstemmingfromtheChornobyldisaster.36Radiationmonitoringwasataskcarriedoutbythemilitaryandtheinformationwaskeptsecretfromenvironmentalofficialsaswellasfromthegeneralpublic.

ThisillustratesanotherchallengeinimplementingthefirstpillaroftheAarhusConvention–howtoensureaccesstotheenvironment-relatedinformationcollectedandheldbypublicagenciesotherthanministriesofenvironment.Forexample,muchoftheinformationheldbyministriesofhealthandagriculture,committeesonlandresourcesandforestry,agenciesonnuclearsafetyandemergencies,andmin-istriesofdefenceisenvironment-related.Whenministriesofenvironmentdonotalwayshaveaclearpictureofthedifferenttypesofenvironmentalinformationgatheredbyothercentral,regionalandlocalgovernments,itisevenmoredifficultforcitizensandNGOstoknowwheretolookforspecificenvironmentalinforma-tion.Oneofthemoreusefulmeasuresforensuringaccesstoenvironmentalinfor-mationcanthereforebetodevelopinventoriesofthetypesandscopesoftheenvironmentalinformationheldbydifferentpublicauthorities,andtomakethoseinventoriesavailabletothegeneralpublicinelectronicaswellasprintedform.37Thedifficultyofdeterminingthescopeofgovernment-heldinformationthatisenvironment-relatedwasreportedlythekeyissuebehindtherefusaloftheKremlintoallowtheRussianFederationtobecomeaSignatoryoftheAarhusConventionin1998.StatesecurityofficialsinparticularraisedconcernthatguaranteeingaccesstoenvironmentalinformationcouldposeathreattoRussia’sstatesecurity.38In2003,intheframeworkofDanish-financedtechnicalassistancetoRussia,thequestionofpossibleaccessiontotheAarhusConventionwasrevisited,includingthepossibilityofdevelopinganationaldefinitionofenvironmentalinformationthatwasbothacceptabletostatesecurityofficialsandwithinthescopeoftheAarhusConvention.39ComplexityofImplementingtheSecondPillarofPublicParticipation

TheAarhusConventionalsoobligestheexecutivebranchofgovernmentstoprovideopportunitiesforpublicparticipationinanumberofscenarios.Forexample,gov-ernmentsarerequiredtoprovidethepublicwiththeopportunitytoparticipateindecisionsofauthoritiesconcerningwhethertoallowcertainproposedactivitiestoproceedthatmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.40TheConvention

238

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANspecifiestheclassesofactivitieswhereenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA)withpublicparticipationmustbecarriedout,aswellastheinformationtobeprovidedandtheproceduresforconsultingthepublic.Publicparticipationisalsorequiredindecisionsconcerningoperatingpermits,aswellasduringthepreparationofplansandprogrammesrelatedtotheenvironment.

Moreover,theConventionobligesgovernmentstopromoteeffectivepublicpar-ticipationduringthepreparationofexecutiveregulationsorlegallybindingnorms.Theparticipationistooccuratanappropriatestagewhileoptionsarestillopen,andtheresultsoftheparticipationaretobetakenintoaccount‘‘asfaraspossible’’.However,theseobligationsarenotsoeasytoputinpracticeandnotalwaysentirelyunderstoodbyenvironmentalofficialsorNGOs.Moretothepoint,implementationoftheAarhusConventionpillarsintheEECCAcountrieswillrunintooldhabitsandtraditionsofgovernancethatcannotbeeasilyovercome.Anexaminationoftheoriginsofthesetraditionsofgovernancemayhelptoilluminatewaystograduallybringaboutchange.

Thesocialistlegalandpoliticalsystemswerebasedonsupremacyofthestateattheexpenseofindividualhumanrights.ItisworthnotingthataRussiantermforgovernmentofficialis‘‘stateservant’’,41ratherthan‘‘publicservant’’.Governmentofficialsservedthestate,notthepublic.Byandlarge,theyfeltaccountableonlytothestate,whichinpracticaltermsmeanthigherofficials.

Underthesocialistlegalsystem,citizenswerenotprovidedthepossibilitytoparticipateinandgiveopinionsasinputforgovernmentaldecision-making.Thetypicalapproachinenvironmentallegislation,forexample,wastoprescribethatcitizensandtheirorganizationsshouldassistgovernmentbodiestoimplementgovernmentpolicies.42Thenotionthatcitizensshouldhaveanimpactonshapingthesepoliceswasnowheretobefound.

IntheyearsjustbeforethefalloftheBerlinwallandthebreakdownoftheSovietUnion,amajorityofthesocialiststatesexperiencedagroundswellofeffortstocreateopenanddemocraticsocieties.Thiscloselycoincidedwithamajorwaveofenvi-ronmentalawarenessintheaftermathoftheChornobyldisasterandinthefaceofoverwhelmingevidenceofwidespreadenvironmentalcatastrophe.43Themagnitudeoftheenvironmentaldegradation–depletionoftheAralSea,pollutionoftheBalticandBlackSeas,industrial‘‘hotspots’’ofpollutionthatharmedhumanhealth–resultedintheenactmentofspeciallawsonenvironmentalprotectioninseveralthenstillSovietRepublics,asforexampleinRussia44,Belarus,45Ukraine,46andKazakhstan.47Theselawsbecamethelegalfoundationsfornationalenviron-mentalprotectionlawandpolicyafterindependence.48Theyalsocontributedtoprovidingtheawarenessandsocialclimateforincludinginthepost-SovietConsti-tutionsseparatearticlesaboutthehumanrightstoasafe,favourable,andhealthyenvironmentandtoaccesstoinformationabouttheenvironmentalsituation.

Startinginthelate1980s,legalscholarsbegantoemphasizetheneedforpublicparticipationinenvironmentaldecision-making.49Intheearly1990ssomelawre-viewarticlesexploredWesternexperiencesandhighlightedtheimportanceofaccess

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA239

toinformation,publicparticipationandcitizenssuitsasprivateenforcementofenvironmentallawsforasuccessfultransitiontodemocraticsocietiesandaseffectivetoolsforenvironmentallawenforcement.50In1994,thefirstRussian-languageguidedevotedtopublicinvolvementinenvironmentaldecisionmaking,accesstoinformation,andappealstocourtwaspublishedwithsupportfromtheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil.51Severalothercitizensguidesfollowed,addressingdifferentaspectsofdefendingtheecologicalrightsoftheRussianpublicandreflectingtherapidlychangingRussianlawsandregulations.52In1994,theHungary-basedRegionalEnvironmentalCentre(REC)publishedamanualinEnglishthatdescribedpublicparticipationtechniquesandpresentedreportsonthesituationindifferentCEEcountries.53In1997,amanualthatpresentedinternationalexperienceandlegalmeansandtoolsavailableforUkrainiancitizenstoprotecttheirecologicalrightsappearedinUkraine.Atthesametime,otherinitiatives–oftenfundedbyoutsidedonors–successfullydemonstratedthepracticalaspectsofdevelopingprocessesofpublicparticipationinenvironmentaldecisionmaking.Forexample,Ukraine’sNationalEnvironmentalandHealthActionPlan(NEHAP),adoptedbythegovernmentin1999,wasdevelopedthroughabroadparticipatoryprocessofdiscussioninvolvingacoalitionofenvi-ronmentalNGOsledbyMAMA-86.55In1997–1999,UkrainianspecialistsfromacrossawiderangeofdisciplinesandsectorswerebroughttogethertosetprioritiesforconservingCrimea’sbiodiversity,baseduponprinciplesofpublicparticipationandtransparentdecisionmaking.56In1997,KazakhstanNGOsalsotookpartinaparticipatoryprocesstoidentifynationalenvironmentalpriorities,duringthedevel-opmentoftheNationalEnvironmentalActionProgrammeforSustainableDevel-opment(NEAP/SD),adoptedbytheKazakhstangovernmentlatethatyear.57Fromtheexamplesabove,itisclearthattheprocessofdemocratisationinpostsocialistsocietiesledtochangesinlegislationandintroducedsocialpracticesthatcoincidedwithapproachesembodiedlaterintheAarhusConvention.58ThesetrendsinvolvedgovernmentofficialsaswellasNGOcommunities.Thuseffortstoimple-mentthesecondpillaroftheAarhusConventiondonotstartfromzero.

Nonetheless,evenaftertenyearsofNGOeffortsanddemocraticreforms,struc-turesforholdinggovernmentadministratorsaccountabletothepublicarestillrare.Mostgovernmentinstitutionsdonotmakedecision-makingprocessestransparentnorhaveopeningsforinputsfromthepublic.

Forexample,inKazakhstan,theMinistryofEnvironmenthadsponsoredsemi-narsontheAarhusConvention,andseniorMinistryofficialswereabletousethevocabularyoftheConventionwithfluency.Butdiscussionsconcerninghowtheyintendedtosetinplaceimplementingtechniquesrevealedthatlong-standingatti-tudeshadnotreallychangedthatmuch.Oneseniorofficialstatedquitefranklythat‘‘itisgoodforpeopletothinkandtotalkaboutdemocracy,butitisimportantforsocietythatgovernmentbyitsactionsmaintainstrictorderandcontrolatalltimes’’.59TheRussianwordusedfordescribingtheessenceofgovernmentactionscanonlybetranslatedintoEnglishastheword‘‘dictatorship’’.60240

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANInalmostallEECCAcountriesvisited,environmentalofficialsviewedtheAarhusConventionaspoliticalendorsementfortheirinformationactivities,butdidnotseethenecessitytoputinplacepracticalmeasurestoimplementtheConvention’spublicparticipationrequirementswithintheiragencies.MinistryofficialswerekeentoorganisemoreworkshopsandseminarsforNGOs,butsometimesforgotthattheirownofficialsneededguidanceonhowtomeettheConventionrequirementswithrespecttopublicparticipation.

MuchmoreneedstobedoneinordertobuildstrongadministrativecapacityandputinplaceimplementationmeasuresthatwillmaketheAarhusConventionprin-ciplesandrequirementforpublicparticipationindecision-makinganessentialpartofeverydaypracticesforpublicagenciesateachhierarchicallevel.

Thiswillrequiretransformingalastingconvictionamonggovernmentalofficialsthattheyknowwhatshouldbedonebetterthananybodyelse.Inthesocialistpastandcontinuingtoday,thehighesttermofpraisethatanofficialcanuseinreferringtoacolleagueisthats/heis‘‘aprofessional’’,meaningthats/hehasastrongknowledge,expertiseandrichexperienceintheareainquestion.Theseofficialsdonotfinditeasytoacknowledgethatsomebodywithoutpropertrainingandyearsofworkintheagencymightbringsomethingvaluabletotheprocessofmakingdeci-sions.Intheirsincerebeliefthatnobodyknowsbetterthantheydowhatkindofdecisionsshouldbemade,someofficialsarereluctanttospendtimeandresourcestomakedecision-makingtransparentandtoinvolvethepublic.

WhilemanyEECCAcountrieshaveprovisionsrequiringpublicconsultationduringanecologicalexpertise(seeNote69concerningecologicalexpertise),veryoftennorulesareinplacetostipulatewhenpublicparticipationisnecessaryorwhatprocedurestofollow.Withoutclearrulesspecifyingwhatisadequatepublicparticipation,assigninglegalresponsibilityforensuringsuchparticipation,andtheconsequencesforviolatingtheresponsibilityforinvolvingthepublic,therealitymaybefarfromtheintentionoftheAarhusConvention.Forexample,inBelarus,theresponsibilitytoinvolvethepublicinastateecologicalexpertiseisassignedtothedeveloper,whocanmeetitsimplybypublishinganoticeinanewspaper.61PilotprojectstodevelopproceduresforensuringpublicparticipationinaspecificsituationcanbeusedtoworkouthowbesttoapplytheAarhusConventionrequirementsinaparticularcountryandnationalculture.Suchprojectscanhelptobuildskillsandexpertisewithinministriesandlocalgovernmentsandideallyassistgovernmentalofficialstolearnnewwaysofworkingthatcangraduallybecomeapartofeverydayroutine.Ifchosenwisely,pilotprojectsalsocandemonstratethevalueofpublicinvolvementanddialogue.

ImplementingtheThirdPillarofAccesstoJustice

TheConventionsafeguardstherightofappealincaserequestsforinformationarerefusedandestablishesasystemforjudicialoradministrativereview,ifaperson

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA241

considersthatarequestforinformationhasbeenunreasonablyrefusedorinade-quatelyanswered.62Itprovidesthatmembersofthepublicwithasufficientlegalinterestshallhaveaccesstoadministrativeorjudicialprocedurestochallengeactsoromissionsbyprivatepersonsandpublicauthoritiesthatviolateprovisionsofna-tionalenvironmentallaw.Moreover,theycanchallengethesubstantiveandpro-cedurallegalityofadecisionsubjecttotheprovisionsofArticle6onpublicparticipationindecisionmakingonspecificactivities.

Theseproceduresaretoprovideadequateeffectiveremediesandnotbeprohibi-tivelyexpensive.NGOspromotingenvironmentalprotectionandmeetingrequire-mentsundernationallawaredeemedtohaveaninterest.Governmentsareencouragedtoestablishappropriateassistancemechanismstoremoveorreducefinancialandotherbarrierstoaccesstojustice.

TheaccesstojusticeprovisionsoftheAarhusConventionbreaknewgroundinmanyWesternEuropeancountries,letalonethecountriesofEasternEurope,theCaucasusandCentralAsia.TheenvironmentalrequirementsoftheEUdonotyetincludeprovisionsonaccesstojustice,sotheseprovisionsareamongthosecurrentlyunderdebateamongtheMemberStatesaspartoftheEuropeanUnion’spre-rati-ficationpreparations.63TherightstoaccesstojusticeguaranteedundertheAarhusConventionaredi-rectlyconnectedtohoweffectivelytherequirementsonaccesstoinformationandpublicparticipationcanbeenforced.Itisparticularlyimportantinthisregardtokeepinmindthatpost-socialistcountriesarestilldevelopingtheirjudicialsystems,whichwereseverelyweakenedduringthesocialistyears.

DuringtheSovietera,interferenceinlitigationbyCommunistPartyofficialswascommon.Atthesametime,nocivilactionbroughttothecourtwasasfrighteningtoadirectorofamajorpollutingplantasacallfromthelocalCommunistPartyofficetoappearbeforeitforahearing.TheCommunistPartyplayedalawenforcementrolewheneveritbelievedlawsneededtobeenforced,whichleftlittleroomfortheauthorityofthejudiciarytodevelop.

Post-socialistConstitutionsannouncingthatthejudicialbranchofgovernmentwouldbeindependentfromthelegislativeandexecutivebranchesofpowerdidnotautomaticallycreateindependent,strongandrespectedjudiciaries.Partlyrespond-ingtothischallenge,manypost-socialiststateshavecreatedConstitutionalCourtsorTribunalsasseparatesupremecourtstooverseetheconstitutionalityoflawsandregulations,andtheirimplementation.

Overthepastdecade,afewdedicatedenvironmentallawyersinRussia,UkraineandotherEECCAcountrieshavedevelopedapioneeringandinfluentialtrackrecordofturningtothecourtstodefendthepublicinterestwithrespecttoenvironmentalprotection.InRussia,theexperiencedplayersnowarelawyersfromEcojurisInstituteinMoscowandafewEcojuris-trainedlawyersaroundRussia,aswellastheRegionalPublicCenter‘‘ForHumanRightsandEnvironmentalDe-fense’’.Forexample,in1997theEcojurisInstitutebroughtalegalsuitagainsttheconstructionofaMoscow-St.Petersburghigh-speedrailsystemonthegroundsthat

242

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANnoenvironmentalimpactassessmenthadbeencarriedout.Theactionledtobroadopposition,andtoPresidentYeltsin’scancellationin1998ofhispreviousdecreespermittingtheproject.

AnotherappealbroughtbyEcojurisresultedinanOctober1999rulingbytheRussianSupremeCourtthatinvalidatedadecreeissuedbyformerPrimeMinisterStepashin.ThedecreehadattemptedtowaiveenvironmentallawrequirementsforExxonanditsRussianpartnersonmarinedischargeoftoxicwastesfromoildrillingoffthecountry’sPacificcoast.InUkraine,anetworkofthreeindependentEcopravoorganisations–inKyiv,KharkivandLviv–hasbroughtanumberoflegalcasestocourts.Ecopravo-Lvivrepresentedthepublicinterest(andnearly100,000people)ina1997caseinwhichtheSupremeArbitrationCourtofUkraineruledthatastateecologicalstudyonachemicalsiteconstructionconductedbytheMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionandNuclearSafetyofUkraineviolatedproceduralrequirements.65ThoughthisdecisionwaslaterreversedbytheCollegiumoftheSupremeArbitrationCourt,itcreatedanexampleofhowcitizenscanusethecourtsintheireffortstobringaboutenvironmentalimprovements.

OtherexamplesincludeEcoPravo-Kharkiv’ssuccessful1997argumentbeforetheSupremeArbitrationCourtonbehalfofagroupofcitizensagainsttheillegaldecisionoflocalauthoritiestoconstructasolidwastesite.Thevictorywastheculminationofatwoyearfightbylocalcitizens.66EcoPravo-Kyivbroughtacom-plaintagainstKyivmunicipalitythatitsmunicipalwastesitethreatenedthelivesandwelfareofnearbylivingcitizens.Thepublicoutcrycreatedbythiscaseresultedinresettlementoftheaffectedfamilies.67KazakhstanNGOshavealsoexploredwaystoexpandaccesstojusticeonenvi-ronmentalmatters.In1999,anAlmaty-basedNGO(LawandEnvironmentEurasiaPartnership)filedacaseonbehalfoflocalcitizensagainstaproposedpetrolstation,chargingthatnoenvironmentalexpertisehadbeencarriedout.68Thecourtruledagainstthecitizens,onthebasisthatnoecologicalexpertisewasrequiredinthatinstance,andthatthepetrolstationwouldnotpresentanenvironmentalrisk.Thegrouphasdevelopedstrategiestopursuealegalfightinthismatter.69However,inNovember2000,theownersofthepetrolstationandtheNGOreachedanagree-ment,callingfortheimplementationofseveralenvironmentalsafeguards.

ButapartfromsuchhighlysophisticatedgroupsmostlyfinancedbyWesternsourcesandlocatedinbigcities,itremainsverydifficultforanordinaryEECCAcitizentopursueanenvironment-relatedactionbeforethecourts.70Theenvironment-relatedrightssetforthinmanyConstitutionsintheregionscannotbeeasilyenforcedthroughatraditionalcourtunderacivilcode-basedlegalsystemunlessdevelopedintospecificlawsdesignedtobeenforceableusingthecourts.InthemajorityofEECCAcountries,thereremainsaneedforimplementinglawsandregulationsthatspecificallyprovidefortherighttotakeagovernmentagencytocourtifenvironmentalinformationisarbitrarilywithheldorpublicparticipationdenied.Thestrengtheningofthejudiciaryremainsanothermajorlong-termchallengeforallformersocialistcountries.

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA243

TheAarhusConventionasaCatalystforMoreAccountableGovernance

ImplementingtheAarhusConvention’sobligationsintheexecutivebranchofgovernmentisnotaneasytask.Inviewofthechallengesdescribedabove,EECCAenvironmentalministriesneedtoputinplaceimplementingmeasuresthatinthemselvesworktobringaboutchangesinhowministriesrelatetothepublic.Therightkindoftechnicalassistancecanmakearealdifferenceinthisrespect.Thehopeisthatgraduallytheseministrieswilldevelopexperienceinbeingaccountablebeforethepublicandmoreopentopublicinvolvementindecisionmaking.

AmajorthresholdquestioninanycountryconcernswhoisresponsibleforimplementingtheAarhusConvention.InmostEECCAenvironmentalministries,publicinformationdepartmentsorsometimesindividualofficersservingasfocalpointsfortheAarhusConventionareexpectedtocarryoutthetaskofimplementingtheConvention’sprovisionssingle-handedly.FewministrieshaveconsideredthattheobligationsundertheAarhusConventionreachtoalldepartmentsofthemin-istry,includingregionalenvironmentalprotectionoffices.

EvenfewercountrieshavestartedtothinkabouthowtheAarhusConventionplacesobligationsonallotherpublicauthoritiesholdingenvironmentalinformationormakingenvironment-relateddecisions.Whileitislogicalforministriesofenvi-ronmenttotakeleadershipinimplementingtheAarhusConventionnationally,itisalsoimportanttokeepinmindthattheAarhusConventionappliestoeverygov-ernmentalbodyperformingduties,activitiesorservicesinrelationtotheenviron-mentandpossessingenvironment-relatedinformation.

BuildingbroaderunderstandingoftheConvention’sapplicationtodifferentgovernmentalagenciesisthereforeessential.InterministerialworkinggroupstoinvestigatethewaysinwhichtheConventionappliestootherministriesandgov-ernmentbodiescanhelpinthistask.

MostofthepositiveobligationsontheexecutivebranchofgovernmentarefoundinthefirstandsecondpillarsoftheAarhusConvention.ThefirststeptobeundertakenisestablishingthedetailedlegalandinstitutionalframeworkforimplementationoftheConvention.AlmostallEECCAcountrieshavealreadycarriedoutsubstantialworkonlegalanalysiseitherthroughotherinternationalassistanceprojectsorattheinitiativeoflocalNGOs.Butwhileframeworklawsonenvironmentalinformationmaybeinplace,implementingregulationssettinginplacethedetailedproceduresnecessaryforenforcementareoftenlacking.

IntermsofpublicparticipationitshouldbenotedthatveryoftencountriesandlocalexpertsinsistthatnationallawscorrespondtotheAarhusConventionrequirementsonpublicparticipation.Indeed,mostEECCAcountriescanpointtoarticlesintheirnationallegislationaffirmingthenecessityofpublicparticipationinenvironmentaldecision-making.ButsuchassertionsneedtobeexaminedmorepreciselyintermsofpracticalmeasuresandproceduresinplacetoensurepublicparticipationinallareasaddressedbytheAarhusConvention.

244

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANForexample,theviewofKazakhstanofficialswithrespecttoimplementingtheAarhusConventionwastodeveloptheMinistryofEnvironment’scapacitytogetoutinformationtothepublicinorderforitspoliciestoreceivemorepublicsupport.Atopministryofficialfrequentlymentionedtheneedto‘‘consolidatewiththepublic’’.71Thetermwasstrangetooutsidersexpectingtohearabout‘‘consultingwiththepublic’’,aspertheAarhusConventionprovisionsonpublicparticipation.ButtheinterpreterconfirmedthattheRussianwordusedwasindeed‘‘consolida-tion’’72,i.e.,tobringthepublicintoaccordancewiththeMinistry’spointofview.LikewiseinotherEECCAcountries,seniorenvironmentalofficialsoftenexpressedthewishtobringenvironmentalNGOsintoacommonunderstandingwiththeministry.TheyenthusiasticallysupportedtheConventionanddidnotdismisspublicparticipationandaccesstoinformationbythegeneralpublicasmighthavebeenobservedjustafewyearsago.TheywishedtocultivateconnectionswithafewsympatheticNGOs,andinsomeinstancesenteredintocooperationagreementswithenvironmentalNGOsorcreatedboardsofNGOsforconsultation.

SeveralEECCAenvironmentalofficialsstressedwithsomepridethattheirmin-istryhadnocontradictionswithNGOs.ItseemeddifficultforthemtoacknowledgethatattimesNGOsmaytakeadifferentpositiononaspecificenvironmentalissuethanthatheldbytheministry.TheywantedrecognitionfromNGOsthatofficialscouldalsobecommittedtoeffectiveenvironmentalprotection.ItwasdifficultfortheseofficialstoacceptthatconstructiveconflictwithcitizensandNGOscouldleadtobetterenvironmentaldecisions.Ontheotherhand,atapublicmeetinginaremoteareaofBelarus,regionalenvironmentalofficialswereseentoenterintoaveryopendebatewithNGOrepresentativesconcerningarecentenvironmentalassessmentofaproposedproject,withnoapparentdefensiveness.73AnalternateprobleminsomecountriesseemedtobethattheConvention,whichisprimarilyasetofproceduralrequirementsandguarantees,wasindangerofbecominganenduntoitself,ratherthanusedasasetofdemocratictoolsforsolvingenvironmentalproblems.

NGOsinparticular,intheireagernesstopromotetherightsprovidedthemintheAarhusConvention,seemedtoforgetthatthesignificanceoftheConventionwillcomeinitsapplicationtospecificenvironmentalproblems.ManyNGOswerefocusingsomuchonpromotingtheAarhusConventionpersethattheyseemedtolosesightoftheConventionasatooltobeusedtoresolvespecificenvironmentalissuesandtofosterbetterandmoreaccountableenvironmentaldecisionmaking.Conclusion

AfundamentalprincipleoftheAarhusConventionisthatwell-informedcitizensandmoregovernmentaccountabilitywillleadtobetterenvironmentaldecisionsandbetterenvironmentalmanagementofspecificenvironmentalproblems.74Asthisarticledescribes,thechangingofattitudesandapproachesingovernancefromthepastisalongandtroublesomeprocess,thesuccessofwhichislargely

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA245

dependentongovernmentalofficialsseeingandunderstandingthebenefitsfrompublicinvolvementinmakingdecisionsandpublicaccesstoinformation.Inbroaderterms,aslongasdemocraticchangesinEECCAcountriesintransitioncontinue,awiderawarenesswillspreadthattransparencyandpublicinvolvementinenviron-mentaldecision-makingareanessentialpartofwell-functioningsocieties.Inthisregard,theroleoftheAarhusConventionasaninstrumenttobringtogetherresponsiblegovernmentalagenciesandconcernedcitizensintheirmutualintentiontoprotecttheenvironmentthatbelongstoeverybodycanhardlybeunderestimated.InseveralEECCAcountries,NGOshaveemphasizedtheneedtodevelopstrat-egiestoimplementtheAarhusConvention.Asthisarticlesuggests,fullimplemen-tationoftheAarhusConventionrequireschangingpatternsandtraditionsofgovernance.Inthissense,theAarhusConventionisitselfakindofstrategy.ItcanbeusedtoaddressaspecificenvironmentalproblemusingtherightsguaranteedundertheConventionitself,i.e.,accesstoenvironmentalinformation,righttopublicparticipationinenvironment-relateddecisionmaking,andaccesstojusticewhenrightshavebeeninfringed.

Inotherwords,theAarhusConventionwillbecomeaneffectiveforcefordem-ocratisationwhenitisappliedinpractice–when,forexample,acitizenwondersaboutthequalityofhisdrinkingwater,orwhenanNGObecomesconcernedaboutanewdevelopmentprojectandseekstohaveanimpactonthedecisionprocess.ForEECCAministriesofenvironment,implementationoftheAarhusConven-tioninvolvesmorethanassigninganofficialtobethenationalfocalpointforinternationalcontactsortoopenapublicinformationdepartment.Itshouldmean,firstofall,toopendoorsforaconstructivedialoguebetweentheministryandthepublic.Itshouldobligealldepartmentsofministriesandtheirlocalbranchestoworkinatransparentwayonaroutinebasis.Aboveall,itmeansholdinggovern-mentaccountablebeforethegeneralpublicforitsenvironment-relateddecisions.Significantinternationalresourcesarecurrentlyavailableforassistancetocoun-triesontheAarhusConventionrelatedprojects.Availabilityoftheseresourcessometimesinspiresprojectsthatoverlookwhythoseresourcesareavailableinthefirstplace.Thisfinancialsupportwillnotandshouldnotexistforever.ItshouldhelpcountriesintransitiontounderstandhowtoimplementtheConventionandtobreakthroughmentalitiesandtraditionsofgovernancethatdonotcorrespondtotheAarhusConventionorblockitsimplementation.Practicalprojectsthatcreatelong-termsustainableoutcomesandprojectsthathelptolearnpracticesanddevelopnewskillsoftransparencyanddialoguearethebestuseofinternationalassistanceforimplementingtheAarhusConvention.

ThechallengeofsuccessfulimplementationoftheAarhusConventionintheEECCAregionbyandlargegoesbeyondimplementationofanyothermultilateralenvironmentalagreementbecauseitrequireschangingpracticesthatarerootedintheSoviettraditionsandcultureofgovernance.Atthesametime,theAarhusConventionhasauniquesignificanceforthisregion,asignificancethatismuchbroaderthanfordemocraciesofWesternEurope.Thereisnodoubtthatfor

246

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMANEECCAcountriesimplementationoftheAarhusConventionisanexerciseinlearningtoolsandskillsofdemocraticgovernancebasedonaccountabilityandtransparency.Andthisisdirectlyconnectedwithbuildingthebaseofdemocracyandtransparencyinthesecountriesneededforasuccessfultransitiontobeingamorestableandsaferpartoftheworld.ThisiswhyimplementationoftheAarhusCon-ventioninEECCAregionshouldremainafocusfortheinternationalcommunity.TheEECCAgovernmentsthathavebecomePartiestotheAarhusConventionhavetakenasignificantstepinexpandingthelegalrightsoftheircitizenswithrespecttotheenvironment.Butthemeasuresrequiredtocarryouttheexecutivebranchobligationsfullywillinvolvemorethanlegalchanges.Asthisarticlesuggests,implementationoftheAarhusConventionwillentailafar-reachingprocessofchangingtheculturesofcontrollingeringfromsocialisttimes.Itiswhennewpracticesofopenness,transparencyandaccountabilityinenvironmentaldeci-sionmakingbecomeeverydayhabitsthattheAarhusConventionwillbetrulyimplemented.

Acknowledgement

TheauthorswouldliketoextendtheirgratitudetoDinneSmederupHansenoftheDanishEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyfornumerousdiscussionsandinsightsrelevanttotheobservationspresentedinthisarticleandcomradeshipduringchal-lengingmissionstodeveloptheAarhusConventionrelatedprojectintheEECCAregion.

Notes

1.Fouradditionalgovernmentssignedbeforetheformaltimeperiodforsignatureended,bringingthetotalnumberofsignatoriesto40(39countriesandtheEuropeanCommu-nity).

2.AsofDecember2003,27countrieshadbecomePartiestotheConvention.Theyinclude:Albania,Armenia,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Belgium,Bulgaria,Cyprus,Denmark,Estonia,France,Georgia,Hungary,Italy,FormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,France,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Latvia,Lithuania,Malta,Moldova,Norway,Poland,Romania,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,andUkraine.

3.Formoreinformation,refertotheAarhusConvention’swebsiteathttp://www.unece.org/env/pp.

4.SeeCouncilDirective90/313/EECof7June1990onthefreedomofaccesstoinformationontheenvironment;CouncilDirective85/337/EECof27June1985ontheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainpublicandprivateprojectsontheenvironment,asamended;andCouncilDirective96/61/ECof24September1996onintegratedpollutionpreventionandcontrol.

5.In2003theEuropeanParliamentandtheCounciladoptedDirective2003/4/ECof28January2003onpublicaccesstoenvironmentalinformationandrepealingCouncilDirective90/313/EEC;andDirective2003/35/ECof26May2003providingforpublic

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA247

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

participationinrespectofthedrawingupofcertainplansandprogrammesrelatingtotheenvironmentandamendingwithregardtopublicparticipationandaccesstojusticeCouncilDirectives85/337/EECand96/61/EC.Inaddition,on24October2003,theEuropeanCommissionadopteda‘‘package’’ofthreelegislativeproposalstocompletealignmentofCommunitylegislationwiththerequirementsoftheAarhusConvention,therebyenablingratification:(1)proposalforaDirectiveonaccesstojusticeinenvi-ronmentalmatters;(2)proposalforaRegulationonapplicationoftheAarhusConven-tiontoECinstitutionsandbodies;and(3)proposalforaCouncilDecisionontheconclusionoftheAarhusConvention,onbehalfoftheEuropeanCommunity.

Otherrecentlyadoptedenvironmentaldirectivescontainingprovisionsonpublicpartic-ipationindecision-makingincludeDirective2001/42/ECof27June2001ontheassessmentofcertainplansandprogrammesontheenvironment;andDirective2000/60/ECof23October2000establishingaframeworkforCommunityactioninthefieldofwaterpolicy.Forexample,foranarticlebyarticledescriptionofthemeasuresnecessaryforimple-mentationoftheAarhusConventionbythegovernments,seeStephenStec,SusanCasey-LefkowitzandJerzyJendroska,eds.,TheAarhusConvention:AnImplementationGuide,DANCEE,UnitedNations,andtheRegionalEnvironmentalCenter;2000;availableathttp://www.unece.org/env/pp/publications.htm.TheUNECEalsopublishesaHandbookofGoodPracticesinPublicParticipationatLocalLevelandLayperson’sGuidetotheConventionavailableatthesamewebsite.SeealsoSvitlanaKravchenko,WhatistheAarhusConvention?–Citizens’environmentalrightsundertheAarhusConvention,PLAN2000INC.,EEB,Belgium.

See,e.g.,ChristineLarssen,‘‘LaConventiond’Aarhusetsonapplicationendroitbelge’’,Ame´nagement-environnement,2001/4,pp.269–297.MichaelZschiesche,‘‘TheAarhusConvention—MoreCitizensParticipationbySettingoutEnvironmentalStandards?’’EnvironmentalLawNetworkInternational,1/2002,pp.21–29;MariaLeeandCarolynAb-bott,‘‘TheUsualSuspects?ParticipationundertheAarhusConvention:PublicParticipa-tioninEnvironmentalDecision-Makinig,ModernLawReview,January2003,pp80–108.See,e.g.,ElenaPetkovawithPeterVeit,‘‘EnvironmentalAccountabilityBeyondTheNation-State:TheImplicationsoftheAarhusConvention’’,GovernanceNotes,April2000,Washington,DC:WorldResourcesInstitute,pp1–12;ResourcesfortheFuture,etal.,PublicAccesstoEnvironmentalInformationandData:PracticeExamplesandLessonsfromtheUnitedStates,theEuropeanUnion,andCentralandEasternEurope,Washington,DC:ResourcesfortheFuture,2001;CarlBruch,ed.,TheNewPublic:TheGlobalizationofPublicParticipation,Washington,DC:EnvironmentalLawInstitute,2002(alsoavailableathttp://www.elistore.org/reports.asp):ElenaPetkova,etal,ClosingtheGap:Information,Participation,andJusticeinDecision-makingfortheEnvironment,Washington,DC:WorldResourcesInstitute,2002;HandbookonAccesstoJusticeundertheAarhusConvention,TheRegionalEnvironmentalCenterforCentralandEasternEurope,2003(on-lineversiononlyathttp://www.rec.org).SeealsoRuthGreenspanBell,JaneBloomStewartandMagdaTothNagy,‘‘FosteringaCultureofEnvironmentalCompliancethroughGreatPublicInvolvement’’,Environment,October2002,pp.34–44,andRuthGreenspanBellandSan-dorFulop,‘‘LikeMinds?TwoPerspectivesonInternationalEnvironmentalJointEfforts’’,EnvironmentalLawReporter,5-2003,pp.10344–10351,forobservationsonatechnicalassistanceprojectonimplementingtheAarhusConventioninHungaryandSlovenia.TheprojectsweresubsequentlyfinancedthroughtheDanishCooperationforEnviron-mentinEasternEurope(DANCEE)facility,managedbytheDanishEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

See,e.g.,SvitlanaKravchenko,‘‘RatificationandEarlyImplementationoftheAarhusConventioninNIS’’,Participate,Autumn2000,p.2.

248

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMAN11.SeePreambletotheAarhusConvention.

12.Indeed,Directive90/313/EEConfreedomofaccesstoenvironmentalinformationinspired

thefirstpillaroftheConvention.

13.Oneoftheso-calledCopenhagencriteriaestablishedbytheCounciloftheEuropean

UnionasapreconditionforconsiderationforEUmembershipisthataprospectivemembermustadoptthecommonrules,standardsandpoliciesthatmakeupthebodyofEUlaw.

14.ThePCAsshareacommonstructure.Article2alwaysstatesthat‘‘respectofdemocracy,

theprinciplesofinternationallaw(…)constituteessentialelementsofpartnershipandofthisagreement’’.TitleVIIistypicallydedicatedtoCooperationonmattersrelatingtodemocracyandhumanrights,theexceptionsbeingthePCAsagreedwithRussiaandUkraine.

15.See,e.g.,thePartnershipandCooperationAgreementbetweentheEuropeanCommuni-tiesandtheirMemberStates,andUkraine(OfficialJournalL049,p.3),SixPCAs(withArmenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia,Kazakhstan,KyrgyzstanandUzbekistan)cameintoforceon1July1999.ThePCAwithRussiacameintoforceon1December1997,whilethePCAswithUkraineandMoldovacameintoforceinMarch1998andinJuly1998,respectively.APCAwassignedwithTurkmenistaninMay1998andisintheprocessofratification.Finally,aPCAwassignedwithBelarusinMarch1995,buttheEUhasnottakenactiontobringitintoforce,becauseofthenationalpoliticalsituation.

16.1998DecreeofthePresidentofUkraine‘‘OnApprovaloftheStrategyofIntegrationof

UkrainewiththeEuropeanUnion’’.

17.Article5requiresactivedisseminationofinformationontheenvironment.18.Article5.3.

19.Article5.9.ThisarticlewasfurtherdevelopedasanindependentProtocolonPollutant

ReleaseandTransferRegisters(PRTRs)whichwasopenedforsignatureattheExtraordinarymeetingofthePartiestotheAarhusConventionon23May2003,inKyiv,Ukraine.Todate37countriesandtheEChavesignedthePRTRProtocol(MaltaandtheSlovakRepublicaretheonlyaccedingcountriesnothavingsignedtheProtocol).20.Article4.

21.Forexample,M.Feshbach&A.Friendly,Jr.,EcocideintheUSSR:HealthandNature

UnderSiege(BasicBooks,1992)discussessecrecyinSovietsocietywithrespecttoenvi-ronmentalmatters.

22.See,e.g.,AlexeyYablokov,EcologicalIgnoranceandEcologicalIrresponsibility.Obstacles

ontheWayofPerestroika,NoOtherWay,Moscow:Progress,1988(inRussian),pp.238–253.

23.SobraniepostanovleniipravitelstvaYkrainskoiSovetskoiSotzialisticheskoiRespybliki

ðCollectionofGovernmentDecreesofUkrainianSovietSocialistRepublic),1990,N.8,st.42.

24.See,e.g.,SofiaSlobodyanikandTatianaZaharchenko,‘‘RighttoKnow:FromaDrafttoa

Law’’,HolosYkrainu(TheVoiceofUkraine),September181992,N.178,p.7(inUkrainian).

25.LawonInformationofUkrainefromOctober2,1992,HolosYkrainu(TheVoiceof

Ukraine),November131992,N.217,pp.3–5(inUkrainian).

26.See,e.g.,the1993LawonInformatizationandthe1997LawonGuaranteesandFreedom

ofAccesstoInformationofUzbekistan;the1995FederalLawonInformation,Infor-matizationandProtectionofInformationoftheRussianFederation;the1998LawonFreedomofInformationandthe1998LawonInformation,InformatizationandPro-tectionofInformationoftheRepublicofAzerbaijan;andthe1998FreedomofInfor-mationLawofLatvia.

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA249

27.SobraniezakonodatelstvaRossiiskoiFederatziiðCollectionofLegislationoftheRussian

Federation),1995,N.8(inRussian).

28.See,e.g.,the1994LawonStateSecretsofUkraine,the1993LawonStateSecretsofthe

RussianFederation,the1997LawonStateSecretsoftheRepublicofAzerbaijan,andthe1997LawonStateSecretsofLatvia.

29.SeeArticle10ofthe1995RussianLawonInformation,InformatizationandProtectionof

Information.

30.Forexample,since1992Ukrainepublishesannualnationalreportsonthestateofnatural

environment;see,e.g.,Natzionalnayadopovidprostannavkolushnogoprupodnogosered-ovusha,1993,Kyiv(inUkrainian).NationalreportsofUkrainestartingfrom1996canbeaccessedatthewebsiteoftheMinistryforEnvironmentalProtectionofUkraineathttp://www.menr.gov.ua/.31.Article5.1.

32.PropagandaiobrazovanieinRussian.

33.InterviewsinKazakhstanduringAugust22–27,2000.

34.InformationgatheredduringmissiontoCroatiaDecember3–7,2000.

35.TheMinistryhassincereceivedtechnicalassistancefromtheDanishEPAtobuildand

expanditscapacitytoimplementtheAarhusConventionpillarsonaccesstoinformationandpublicparticipation.FormoreinformationseeAarhusConventionpageattheMinistrywebsite:http://www.menr.gov.ua.

36.InformationgatheredduringmissiontoBelarusMay27–June1,2001.

37.Thiselementwasintegratedintomostofthetechnicalassistanceprojectsrelatedtothe

AarhusConventionfinancedbytheDANCEEfacility.

38.InformationgatheredduringmissiontoRussiaMay13–17,2002.39.Formoreinformation,seehttp://rusrec.ru/aarhus/index.htm.40.Articles6–8oftheAarhusConvention.41.GosydarstvennuislyzhashiiinRussian.

42.See,e.g.,Article12onpublicparticipationofthe1994LawonSubsoilofUkrainewhich

replicatingatypicalapproachfromtherecentsocialistpastsaysthatcitizensandtheirassociationsshallassistthelocalauthoritiesinimplementationofmeasureswithregardtousingandprotectingthesubsoilresources.

43.FordescriptionsoftheenvironmentalproblemsaccumulatedintheSovietUnionbythis

period,see,e.g.,M.Feshbach&A.Friendly,Jr.,EcocideintheUSSR:HealthandNatureUnderSiege(BasicBooks,1992);D.J.Peterson,TroubledLands:TheLegacyofSovietEnvironmentalDestruction(WestviewPress,1993).

44.The1991LawonProtectionofNaturalEnvironmentoftheRussianFederation,1992

VedomostiSiezdanarodnuhdepytatovRossiikoiFederatzii,N.20,St.1(inRussian).45.The1992LawonProtectionofEnvironmentoftheRepublicofBelarus,1993Vedomosti

VerhovnogoSovetaRespyblikiBelarus,NN.1,10(inRussian).

46.The1991LawonProtectionofNaturalEnvironmentoftheUkrainianSovietSocialist

Republic,1991VidomostiVerhovnoiRaduYkrainu,N.41,St.6(inUkrainian).

47.The1991LawonProtectionofNaturalEnvironmentoftheKazakhSovietSocialist

Republic.1991.Almaty(inRussian).

48.ForanoverviewofchangesinenvironmentalpolicyandlawintheformerSovietUnion

duringthisperiodseeTatianaZaharchenko,‘‘TheEnvironmentalMovementandEco-logicalLawintheSovietUnion:TheProcessofTransformation’’,EcologyLawQuarterly17/3,BerkeleyCA(1990),pp.455–497.

49.See,e.g.,N.P.Malysheva,‘‘DemocratizationofEnvironmentalDecision-makingPro-cess’’,StateandPublicControlintheAreaofEnvironmentalProtection,Kiev,1988,p.28(inRussian).

250

TATIANAR.ZAHARCHENKOANDGRETTAGOLDENMAN50.See,e.g.,T.R.Zaharchenko,‘‘Social-legalfactorsoftheUSenvironmentallawrealiza-tion’’,(1992)2Sovietstatelaw,pp.131–140(inRussian).

51.TatianaZaharchenko,CitizenGuideforEnvironmentalDemocracyinRussia(inRussian),

NRDC,SaintPetersburg.1994.

52.SeeM.I.Vasiliyeva,JudicialProtectionofEcologicalRights:LegalQuestionsofCom-pensationandPreventionofEnvironmentalDamage(inRussian),CenterforEcologicalPolicyofRussia.Moscow,1996;S.A.Bogolubov,ProtectionofEcologicalRights:GuidebookforcitizensandNGOs(inRussian),CenterforEcologicalPolicyofRussia.Moscow,1996;HowtoDefendYourEcologicalRights.GuideforCitizensandNGOs.ðinRussian),NewspaperGreenWorld(Zelenuimir,)N.6,1997(electronicversionavailableathttp://www.ecoline.ru/mc/books/ecojuris/),EcojurisInstitute.Moscow,1996.

53.ManualonPublicParticipationinEnvironmentalDecisionmaking:CurrentPracticeand

FuturePossibilitiesinCentralandEasternEurope.RegionalEnvironmentCentre(REC),1994.(AversionwasmadeavailablealsoinHungarian;in1995aBalticSupplementcoveringthethreeBalticRepublicswaspublishedinEnglish.)

.EcologicalRightsofCitizens:HowtoProtectThemwithHelpofLawðinUkrainian),ABA/

CEELIandothers,InformatziineAgentstvo‘‘Eho-Vostok’’Kyiv,1997.55.Foradditionalinformationon-line,seehttp://www.mama-86.org.ua/.

56.Priority-settinginConservation:ANewApproachforCrimea(inRussianandEnglishwith

ExecutiveSummariesinUkrainianandCrimeanTatar).BiodiversitySupportProgram(USA),1999.

57.NationalenvironmentalactionplanforsustainabledevelopmentoftheRepublicofKa-zakhstanðinRussianandEnglish).1999.Foradditionalinformationon-line,seehttp://www.neapsd.kz/.

58.Foroverviewoftrendsanddevelopmentsinpublicparticipationduringthisperiodin

Armenia,Belarus,Moldova,Russia,andUkraine,seeDoorstoDemocracy:CurrentTrendsandPracticesinPublicParticipationinEnvironmentalDecisionmakingintheNewlyIndependentStates,TheRegionalEnvironmentalCenterforCentralandEasternEurope,June1998;for15CEEcountries,seeDoorstoDemocracy:CurrentTrendsandPracticesinPublicParticipationinEnvironmentalDecisionmakinginCentralandEasternEurope,TheRegionalEnvironmentalCenter,June1998;seealsoDoorstoDemocracy:APan-EuropeanAssessmentofCurrentTrendsandPracticesinPublicParticipationinEnvironmentalMatters,TheRegionalEnvironmentalCenter,June1998.

59.InformationgatheredduringmissiontoKazakhstan22–27August,2000.60.DiktatyrainRussian.

61.Article12ofthe2000LawonStateEcologicalExpertiseoftheRepublicofBelarusstip-ulatesthatadevelopershouldprovideforparticipationofconcernedcitizensandNGOsinpreparationanddiscussionofthematerialsofenvironmentalimpactassessment(part3).However,the2001InstructionontheOrderofConductingtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentintheRepublicofBelarus,whichobligesadevelopertoconductpublichearingsofenvironmentalimpactassessment(point14.1),alsosaysthatpublichearingsmaybeconductedbypublishinginmassmediasuggestionsaboutplannedprojectsordiscussionofthesesuggestionsonthemeetingsofcitizensandNGOs(point16).62.Article9.

63.TheproposalsforaDirectiveonAccesstoJusticeinenvironmentalmattersandfora

RegulationontheapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheAarhusConventiononaccesstoinformation,publicparticipationinthedecision-makingandaccesstojusticeinenvi-ronmentalmatterstotheECinstitutionsandbodiesarecurrentlyintheEUlegislativeprocess.

AARHUSCONVENTIONIMPLEMENTATIONINEASTERNEUROPE/CENTRALASIA251

.Forinformationon-lineonEcojurisInstituteandupdatesoncases,seehttp://webcen-ter.ru/~ecojuris/.

65.ForadditionalinformationonEcopravo–Lvivandupdatedcases,seehttp://www.ecopr-avo.lviv.ua/.

66.ForinformationonEcoPravo–Kharkivandcases,seehttp://www.ecopravo.kharkov.ua/.67.ForinformationonEcoPravo–Kyivandcases,seehttp://www.ecopravo.kiev.ua/.

68.Anecologicalexpertise(EE)inEECCAcountriesistheanalogueofanenvironmental

impactassessment(EIA)intheWestbutwithsignificantdifferences.UndertheSoviettraditionofenvironmentallaw,therearetwomainkindsofEE:thestateEEandthepublicEE.Forexample,Moldova’s1996LawonEcologicalExpertiseandEIAprovidedforthreekindsofEE:(1)‘‘stateEE’’–carriedoutonlybytheMinistryofEnvironment;(2)‘‘sectoralEE’’–carriedoutbytheMinistryinvolvedinthatsector;and(3)‘‘publicEE’’–carriedoutbyanNGO.ThestateEEiscommissionedbytheenvironmentalauthorityandusuallycarriedoutbytechnicalexpertsworkinginascientificinstitutelinkedtothegovernment,ratherthanbytechnicalexpertsworkingonbehalfoftheprojectproponent.ThestateEE(essentiallyascientificreportassessingtheenvironmentalimpactoftheproposedproject)isthenusedasthebasisfortheenvironmentalauthoritiestodecidewhetherornottogivetheirapprovaltotheproject.ThestateEEdidnothavetheproceduralrequirementsincludingapubliccommentsstagethataretypicalforthewesternEIA,andthereforetherewasnoopportunityforthepublicconcernedtoexpressitsopinionwithregardtothestateEE.However,thepublicconcernedcouldinitiateapublicEE,atitsownexpense.AccordingtotheestablishedSovietlegalapproach,theresultsofthepublicEEmaybetakenintoaccountbythestateauthorities(butmaybenot).Morerecently,theenvironmentallawsofsomepost-SovietstateshavestartedintroducingmoreWesternstylepublicparticipationrequirementstoEE.Forexample,Article14ofthe1995LawonEcologicalExpertiseoftheRussianFederation(asamended)requiresthatamongthematerialspresentedforthestateEEshouldbetheresultsofdiscussionsoftheprojectwithcitizensandNGOs.69.InterviewsgatheredinKazakhstanduring22–27August,2000.

70.SeeHandbookonAccesstoJusticeundertheAarhusConvention,RegionalEnvironmental

CenterforCentralandEasternEurope,2003,p.153.ThispublicationincludesotherexamplesofcitizensandNGOsaccessingcourtsintheEECCAregion.However,thecasespresentedpredatetheConvention’scomingintoforceonOctober17,2000,soarenotexamplesofaccesstojusticeundertheAarhusConvention.71.InterviewsgatheredinKazakhstanduring22–27August,2000.72.KonsolidatziyainRussian.

73.MeetingsobservedduringmissiontoBelarusMay27–June1,2001.74.PreambleoftheConventionandArticle1.